Netizens-Digest Monday, April 7 2003 Volume 01 : Number 466 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: [netz] Posting bounced message [netz] censorship Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] censorship Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Re: [netz] censorship Re: [netz] Many voices online and off ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:51:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Jay Hauben Subject: [netz] Posting bounced message This message bounced because the list server detected a possible administartion message in line 2. It is from Luis de Quesada Hello Howard: The first thing you threatened everyone with doing when I posted my article favoring diplomacy was un s ubscription. You shot right from the hip. If I read Ronda correctly netizens is a vehicle for communications and democracy. I don't think anyone on the list minds if you or anyone elses posts pro-war , pro-Bush articles. Because that is the primary function of democracy. You do not have to be anti-war opinionated to be a good netizen or to be admitted or allowed to stay as a netizen. However bear in mind that contributors to this list also have their opinions and a desire to post them and according to what Michael, Ronda and Jay intended when they created netizens and this list is respect to all postings and the right of other netizens to ask questions and post replies to them in case there is something in them they do not understand or disagree with. Its a purely democratic forum and the way I see it you can write in it about whatever you like, because democracy and freedom of expression is the perfect vehicle for communications. So post as you wish, I will respect what you post and I will post in reply if I disgree, but please also respect mine and reply and dissent all you want and above all do not try to censor, or try to prevent me from posting, due to some misinterpretation of a protocol. Also comments about "Jay somehow demeaning himself "for posting anti-war articles, are disrespectful and are not appreciated. Let's start by not insulting each other and respecting each other. Luis de Quesada "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > At 12:08 AM -0400 4/7/03, Jay Hauben wrote: > >This message was not distributed when it was received by the list because > >the list program detected a word in it on line 9 about leaving the list. > >It was sent by Luis de Quesada: > > > >Hello Ronda: I am glad that you pointed out that censorship or attempts to > >censor by some have existed in our list. I must also point out that these > >attempts to censor have not been exempt of insults, like Mark's suggestion > >that we change our list's name from netizens to "co-dependents list" a > >suggestion replied to with alacrity by Howard, while Jay has referred to as > >"demeaning himself" everytime he posts any article that is critical of the > >present war in Iraq. Also those who have posted such articles or comments > >have been accused of "destroying the list", with the threat of Howard's > >un subscription as a result of non-compliance by the censored, being > >brandished in a terrorist fashion (talk about AlQaeda).So we've seen and > >read about elsewhere, censorship is not exempt of insults and trumped up > >charges, sort of like adding insult to injury so double damage is inflicted > >on the censored or mentally manipulated. > >Luis de Quesada > > I'm confused both at the attributions and their interpretations -- > and forgive me if I contributed to them. > > If I may presume to speak for Mark, the reference to codependency > struck me as a reference to those, including myself, who really don't > want to be involved in a particular thread, perhaps as witness that > we feel it's not appropriate. I know that there have been cases where > I felt that not commenting in a given thread was the wisest thing for > me to do, yet a later post caused me, emotionally, to post to it. By > that second post, I "enabled" the behavior, which is my understanding > of the meaning of codependency -- providing a support to behavior > that the codependent really wishes would stop. > > The reference to terrorism completely confuses me. If that is > directed to the possibility of unsubscribing, I fail to see the > relevance between "emigration" as a matter of conscience and > "terrorism" as a means to do harm. Perhaps I flatter myself that > withdrawing my contributions would do harm, but that is in sorrow, > not in anger. If I reached a point -- and I have not -- where I felt > my contributions would be welcome only if they were "politically > correct," then my continuing would be involuntary servitude or > codependency. > > I believe there is a perception by at least some list members that to > take other than a particular anti-war, anti-globalization, > US-as-imperialist position implies one cannot be a good Netizen. I > hope I am totally wrong in that assumption. I would merely ask that > before people generalize what makes a good Netizen, they would > consider that a Netizen may make a decision in good conscience that > is not the same as one's own. > > For example, while I am not wildly in favor of the intervention in > Iraq, which I can't make as binary as pro-war or anti-war, I do feel > indirectly criticized that taking that position means I can't be a > Real Netizen. ;-) > > Incidentally, it is with considerable respect for all that I say I > have observed that everyone here has managed to keep their > policy-level views on the war quite separate from their views of the > troops and civilians on either side. Of course I have a tendency to > think first of my own -- but if I were in the lines, I'd like to > think that I would give the same level of medical treatment to an > Iraqi or a British soldier, or to an Iraqi civilian. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:51:31 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: [netz] censorship Quoting lindeman@bard.edu: > No, there isn't, and there cannot be: I have no power to censor you in any > meaningful sense of the word. Whoops, that was slight hyperbole on my part. But here are the dictionary definitions I find for "censor" as a verb: "To examine and expurgate." (American Heritage) "1: forbid the public distribution of; as of movies or newspapers [syn: ban] 2: subject to political, religious, or moral censorship*; 'This magazine is censored by the government' " (WordNet) * censorship: "1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring, security review] 2: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: censoring]" I'm sure some other meaningful sense of the word can be construed. But rather than redefine this word, it might be better to find other language. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:17:37 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Luis, I respectfully disagree with just about everything in your message, especially your assertions of not having misunderstood me. So now I must put the question back to myself: So what? Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 10:36:12 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: [netz] censorship Hello: No technical or dictionary definition will refrain my use of the word. As a long time fighter for democracy I know censorship and attempts to censor when I see it. Its the attempt to prevent anyone from writing or posting his opinions, because they do not agree with the opinions of someone else. For example if I post asking you to refrain from writing in favor of the war, because you've already said it a million times or just one time. That is an attempt to censor. Or if you wish an attempt to persuade a person not to post or write because in the opinion of the persuader, it does not conform with his opinions. Different methods of censorship are used, like: "I'm tired of you writing about the same thing over and over again, what you write does not conform with my interpretation of netizens, etc. A person can very well hide or whitewash or sanitize( the latters are a favorite government tool mind you) his true intentions behind what some sort of Oxford College Thesaurus, might describe as censorship, but that won't hold any water. Any attempt successful or not to prevent or persuade any person from writing whatever they feel like writing, is indeed censorship and as Ronda very well put it remindful of McCarthyism. Luis de Quesada lindeman@bard.edu wrote: > Quoting lindeman@bard.edu: > > > No, there isn't, and there cannot be: I have no power to censor you in any > > meaningful sense of the word. > > Whoops, that was slight hyperbole on my part. But here are the dictionary > definitions I find for "censor" as a verb: > > "To examine and expurgate." (American Heritage) > > "1: forbid the public distribution of; as of movies or newspapers [syn: ban] 2: > subject to political, religious, or moral censorship*; 'This magazine is > censored by the government' " (WordNet) > > * censorship: "1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any > information of value to the enemy [syn: censoring, security review] 2: deleting > parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: > censoring]" > > I'm sure some other meaningful sense of the word can be construed. But rather > than redefine this word, it might be better to find other language. > > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 10:51:57 -0400 From: Luis De Quesada Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd) Hello: I am glad you have finally chosen to respectfully disagree and I respect that. I did understood you perfectly well when you angrily snapped at Ronda for her postings and made accusations against her and Jay about "destroying the list". There was no misunderstanding there, unless now you'd like to change your tune.Your angry words were perfectly clear. But again in a democratic forum it was your right to do so. The Haubens are still grieving the death of their son, they are depressed and because of it could not respond to your angry tirades and coercion attempts as they should have, in a timely, firm and matter of fact fashion as it was their right to do so. I am glad Ronda did find the time out of her suffering and anguish as a grieving mother this past weekend to respond to some of them and to rightfully point out that her views and postings were dismissed with contempt bordering on personal disrespect, by you and your confederates. As to asking yourself "so what" I do not know what you mean by that. But I still must point out to you, again, that any attempt on your part or any one else's to persuade or prevent me or any netizen to stop posting about the war or anything they want to post will be met with a reply. I am not Jay, who kept quiet when you and your confederates chose to insult him and shut him up by telling him he was "demaning himself". With me you don't get away with it. Understand? Luis de Quesada lindeman@bard.edu wrote: > Luis, > > I respectfully disagree with just about everything in your message, especially > your assertions of not having misunderstood me. > > So now I must put the question back to myself: So what? > > Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:42:35 -0400 (EDT) From: lindeman@bard.edu Subject: Re: [netz] censorship Luis, You think my posts are inappropriate, and say so; I think your posts are inappropriate, and say so. Since neither of us is in a position to abuse state power to ruin the other's life through egregious accusations of disloyalty, for the apparent purpose of personal aggrandizement, I don't think either of us bears any resemblance to McCarthy. You are at liberty to use words to mean whatever you want them to mean, without being fettered by technical or dictionary meanings. But why do you expect anyone to make the effort to understand your personal language? Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:36:31 EDT From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off - --part1_1e6.620c789.2bc2f4ff_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/5/03 11:50:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, ronda@panix.com writes: > One of the slogans of the people in Eastern Germany when they fought > to bring down the Berlin Wall was "We demand the right to criticize > our government". That is a slogan that is at the essence of the > development of how to make something better. > > This is at the essence of citizenship. > > I am proposing that this is also related to the essence of netizenship. > > As Michael pointed out in his Preface to the Netizens book, > it isn't one then needs to say "good" netizen, because he > intended the concept to express responsibility for actions > and participation and taking on that responsibility. > > Similarly citizenship requires the responsibility to figure > out what is being done in ones name and participating in the > ways one can find that the activities of ones government are > the activities that benefit people not harm them. > This requirement of citizenship, to figure out what truly is being done in one's name, requires information -- the kind of information that is most likely held confidential. You're possibly going to have to break into government databases and rescue reports and transcripts of convening authorities to get at the real data. In lieu of this kind of activity you're going to have to trust the officials that you have empowered with your vote. What is wrong with that? -- A very good question. Paranoia or the expressed expectation of baneful behavior of your adversary is not the beginning of a good diplomacy. Consider that it is not very constructive to express either overtly or ambagiously that you do not trust the elected officials that you voted for. To reiterate, within the your last statement about the requirement of citizenship above is the assumption that the government cannot be trusted. At which point that such a feeling has been expressed, one is most likely not going to get a positive response from the agent(s) or representative(s) of government that is being so described. Hopefully Ronda before getting to the 'test of trustworthiness,' we should have already pursued a means of establishing a 'retainer relationship' for our elected official. You 'participate,' just as you say, but not ostensibly out of distrust; participate out of a feeling of civic obligation. No one (politician) likes to feel as though he is being manipulated. Nonetheless, if a large enough percentage of the constituency is sharing the responsibility of local government administration indirectly by supporting the local office or volunteering, they naturally build a capital leverage that they can use to get the representative to perform for them. This is equivalent to what a lobbyist can do with money to influence policy and in some ways this kind of participation is more effective. Consider that without particularly volunteer support, the official's office would lose many services that affect many people. No politician wants to draw bad press. So here I have illustrated a tacit yet real threat that the constituency can invoke. Simply, you get a preponderant percentage of the constituency to volunteer services to the office of the local elected official. The more the volunteers are used, the more they are needed. People get used to the new expanded level of services that are being provided. At which point volunteers feel that they are being misrepresented, they can always refuse to participate, effectively shutting the office down. This is an example of the power that I have been talking about. But more constructively speaking, the new 'volunteering constituency' becomes a more informed constituency. It informs itself with greater currency than a newsletter about the issues that affect them. The meaningful benefit of currency is particularly that the constituency can employ their manipulative influences in a timely and effective manner -- that is to say, BEFORE legislation. Like I have said repeatedly in earlier posts, effective participation must be ongoing commencing at the 'swearing to office.' True effective participation is like an insurance policy. You participate during the good times so that you can effectively manage the bad times. In this construction, where is the opportunity for there to be mistrust? The constituency is involved in local administration. There is no place to hide. Information about everything that the elected representative is considering including upcoming legislation is disseminated immediately. All behavior and appointments are chronicled with more peering eyes -- including meetings with special interests. There is no place to hide. There is no opportunity for government to harm the people because participation is no longer about 'a paranoid discovery mission of the unhale' as is alluded by your semantics, i.e., "participating in the ways one can find ..." The usage of 'find' implies the existence of a miscommunication event between two parties, i.e., asynchronism; there is a point where both sides do not have the same information. But where is the 'information asynchronism' between two parties to occur when both parties are at the same source? I conclude that if there has been true participation by citizens, there is no need for discovery of harm; the elected official and the citizenry are working together in 'synchrony.' There is no place to plot. There is no place to hide. Please provide an example where, what I call, 'true effective participation' had honestly taken place and did not work. You know what I mean. I understand that there are always people that participate; and in most of these cases this construction does not apply. I am talking about a situation where there is an overwhelming percentage of the constituency that is involved with the management of local governance. Show me one honest example in the United States that proves my conjecture about the influence of local governance by the 'volunteering constituency' wrong. Your demonstration will be clearly conveyed if you stuck to the United States. Consider that it will be meaningful that you cannot find such an example. What does that tell you about the necessity of protests as a first, underline 'first,' effective and diplomatic means for making change? Protests usually happen AFTER the legislation. They at least tacitly purport that government is not to be trusted, perpetuating an 'us' versus 'them' relationship, antithetical to diplomatic and constructive discourse. Show me honestly where we are doing all we can do as citizens -- as Netizens. This is where I have a problem with the protests. In some ways the protests make the problem worse by perpetuating the myth that the citizenry IS doing everything it can. And as I have illustrated, this is not entirely true. We are not doing everything we can. Protests disrespect the efforts of those that are trying to work within the system by tacitly calling these efforts ineffective without even making an attempt to honestly evaluate these efforts themselves. Excuse my 'Jesse Jackson' here but -- 'Preparation before expectation.' I think we have a theme here. Let us prepare by getting involved in government 'from the swearing in to beyond' to agglomerate our influence capital. Only then can we expect our intentions and rights to be adequately represented and protected. I do not wish to ignore the value of protests when used appropriately, but tools when unreasonably abused lose their efficacy. ...like adding antibiotics in animal feed -- resistant strains will appear. ...like using a flat blade when a phillips is the appropriate screwdriver -- the head of the screw eventually disintegrates. To be responsible and constructive, citizens should properly exploit the protests to motivate citizens to get involved in government rather than use them to encourage further alienation from government. Larry - --part1_1e6.620c789.2bc2f4ff_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 4/5/03 11:50:50 AM Eastern Standard= Time, ronda@panix.com writes:

One of the slogans of the peopl= e in Eastern Germany when they fought
to bring down the Berlin Wall was "We demand the right to criticize
our government". That is a slogan that is at the essence of the
development of how to make something better.

This is at the essence of citizenship.

I am proposing that this is also related to the essence of netizenship.

As Michael pointed out in his Preface to the Netizens book,
it isn't one then needs to say "good" netizen, because he
intended the concept to express responsibility for actions
and participation and taking on that responsibility.

Similarly citizenship requires the responsibility to figure
out what is being done in ones name and participating in the
ways one can find that the activities of ones government are
the activities that benefit people not harm them.


This requirement of citizenship, to figure out what truly is being done in o= ne's name, requires information -- the kind of information that is most like= ly held confidential.  You're possibly going to have to break into gove= rnment databases and rescue reports and transcripts of convening authorities= to get at the real data.  In lieu of this kind of activity you're goin= g to have to trust the officials that you have empowered with your vote.&nbs= p;

What is wrong with that?  -- A very good question.

Paranoia or the expressed expectation of baneful behavior of your adversary=20= is not the beginning of a good diplomacy.  Consider that it is not very= constructive to express either overtly or ambagiously that you do not trust= the elected officials that you voted for.

To reiterate, within the your last statement about the requirement of citize= nship above is the assumption that the government cannot be trusted.  A= t which point that such a feeling has been expressed, one is most likely not= going to get a positive response from the agent(s) or representative(s) of=20= government that is being so described.

Hopefully Ronda before getting to the 'test of trustworthiness,' we should h= ave already pursued a means of establishing a 'retainer relationship' for ou= r elected official.

You 'participate,' just as you say, but not ostensibly out of distrust; part= icipate out of a feeling of civic obligation.  No one (politician) like= s to feel as though he is being manipulated.  Nonetheless, if a large e= nough percentage of the constituency is sharing the responsibility of local=20= government administration indirectly by supporting the local office or volun= teering, they naturally build a capital leverage that they can use to get th= e representative to perform for them.  This is equivalent to what a lob= byist can do with money to influence policy and in some ways this kind of pa= rticipation is more effective. 

Consider that without particularly volunteer support, the official's office=20= would lose many services that affect many people. 

No politician wants to draw bad press.  So here I have illustrated a ta= cit yet real threat that the constituency can invoke.  Simply, you get=20= a preponderant percentage of the constituency to volunteer services to the o= ffice of the local elected official.  The more the volunteers are used,= the more they are needed.  People get used to the new expanded level o= f services that are being provided.  At which point volunteers feel tha= t they are being misrepresented, they can always refuse to participate, effe= ctively shutting the office down. 

This is an example of the power that I have been talking about.

But more constructively speaking, the new 'volunteering constituency' become= s a more informed constituency.  It informs itself with greater currenc= y than a newsletter about the issues that affect them. 

The meaningful benefit of currency is particularly that the constituency can= employ their manipulative influences in a timely and effective manner -- th= at is to say, BEFORE legislation.

Like I have said repeatedly in earlier posts, effective participation must b= e ongoing commencing at the 'swearing to office.'  True effective parti= cipation is like an insurance policy.  You participate during the good=20= times so that you can effectively manage the bad times.

In this construction, where is the opportunity for there to be mistrust?&nbs= p; The constituency is involved in local administration.  There is no p= lace to hide.

Information about everything that the elected representative is considering=20= including upcoming legislation is disseminated immediately.  All behavi= or and appointments are chronicled with more peering eyes -- including meeti= ngs with special interests.

There is no place to hide.  There is no opportunity for government to h= arm the people because participation is no longer about 'a paranoid discover= y mission of the unhale' as is alluded by your semantics, i.e., "participati= ng in the ways one can find ..."  The usage of 'find' implies the exist= ence of a miscommunication event between two parties, i.e., asynchronism; th= ere is a point where both sides do not have the same information.

But where is the 'information asynchronism' between two parties to occur whe= n both parties are at the same source?

I conclude that if there has been true participation by citizens, there is n= o need for discovery of harm; the elected official and the citizenry are wor= king together in 'synchrony.' 

There is no place to plot.  There is no place to hide.

Please provide an example where, what I call, 'true effective participation'= had honestly taken place and did not work.  You know what I mean. = ; I understand that there are always people that participate; and in most of= these cases this construction does not apply. 

I am talking about a situation where there is an overwhelming percentage of=20= the constituency that is involved with the management of local governance.&n= bsp; Show me one honest example in the United States that proves my conjectu= re about the influence of local governance by the 'volunteering constituency= ' wrong. 

Your demonstration will be clearly conveyed if you stuck to the United State= s.

Consider that it will be meaningful that you cannot find such an example.&nb= sp; What does that tell you about the necessity of protests as a first, unde= rline 'first,' effective and diplomatic means for making change?  Prote= sts usually happen AFTER the legislation.  They at least tacitly purpor= t that government is not to be trusted, perpetuating an 'us' versus 'them' r= elationship, antithetical to diplomatic and constructive discourse. 
Show me honestly where we are doing all we can do as citizens -- as Netizens= .  This is where I have a problem with the protests.  In some ways= the protests make the problem worse by perpetuating the myth that the citiz= enry IS doing everything it can. 

And as I have illustrated, this is not entirely true.  We are not doing= everything we can.

Protests disrespect the efforts of those that are trying to work within the=20= system by tacitly calling these efforts ineffective without even making an a= ttempt to honestly evaluate these efforts themselves. 

Excuse my 'Jesse Jackson' here but -- 'Preparation before expectation.' = ; I think we have a theme here. 

Let us prepare by getting involved in government 'from the swearing in to be= yond' to agglomerate our influence capital.  Only then can we expect ou= r intentions and rights to be adequately represented and protected.

I do not wish to ignore the value of protests when used appropriately, but t= ools when unreasonably abused lose their efficacy.  ...like adding anti= biotics in animal feed -- resistant strains will appear.  ...like using= a flat blade when a phillips is the appropriate screwdriver -- the head of=20= the screw eventually disintegrates.

To be responsible and constructive, citizens should properly exploit the pro= tests to motivate citizens to get involved in government rather than use the= m to encourage further alienation from government. 

Larry
 - --part1_1e6.620c789.2bc2f4ff_boundary-- ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #466 ******************************